[pct-l] Bikes on PCT- enforcement NEEDED

[Donna Saufley]

AsABat, I completely agree with what you’re saying.  I’ve heard about the Ridge Runners on the AT, though I am not at all certain how that program works.  There are the backcountry rangers in the Sierras as an example closer to home (they get paid but it’s mostly a labor of love).   On the other side of the argument, I’ve become aware of how much paid staff time can go towards operating volunteer programs.  There are dollars involved in training volunteers and supervising them in the field, as well as providing materials and uniforms.  No doubt there has to be liability coverage, etc.  And, you can’t fire them because they are volunteers!  Devil’s advocacy aside, I personally believe there should be programs like you describe.  Though we as hikers tend to hate the reality, it all takes funding.

 

I also agree with Tortoise, cuts in government spending has had a huge effect on agency resources, and lack of law enforcement.  This is one of the threats to the PCT.  Even though that is true, the PCTA has managed to lobby Congress successfully  for increased funding from the USFS for trail maintenance (this is part of AHS’ “Hike the Hill” event, and is entirely volunteer self-funded).  The PCTA has gained much respect on all levels for their programs and contributions toward maintenance of the trail.  They’ve defied the odds and grown  the budget number.  But politics are fickle, who knows where the economy is going, and the threat to funding remains. 

 

L-Rod

 

From: AsABat [mailto:asabat at 4jeffrey.net] 
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 10:32 AM
To: dsaufley at sprynet.com; 'Timothy Nye'; moodyjj at comcast.net
Cc: pct-l at backcountry.net
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Bikes on PCT- enforcement NEEDED

 

Donna et al,

While the PCTA does not have enforcement authority, there are many cases where the forest service uses volunteers to provide a public contact in the field. Into and San Gorgonio both come to mind. A volunteer in uniform has some power even if they can't write citations. A volunteer at a popular trailhead can provide info and educate users about the rules. A radio can be used to call LE when needed with description and license number. The challenge as you notes is the many jurisdictions. 

AsABat



-----Original message-----

From: Donna Saufley <dsaufley at sprynet.com>
To: &apos;Timothy Nye&apos; <timpnye at gmail.com>, &apos;Jim & Jane Moody&apos; <moodyjj at comcast.net>
Cc: pct-l at backcountry.net
Sent: Thu, Nov 4, 2010 16:36:08 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Bikes on PCT- enforcement NEEDED

Timothy,

I think that the PCTA as enforcer is a common misconception that people have
about the organization's purpose and scope. The PCTA is not the "authority
having jurisdiction" over policing activities the trail. The organization
is a private partner to the public agencies that manage the trail. Their
mission is to protect, preserve, and promote the trail by education and
private support for the trails needs. 

The US Forest Service is the lead agency for the PCT, on point for the
myriad of other agencies that the trail passes through: Bureau of Land
Management, National Parks, state and county parks in three states, Bureau
of Indian Affairs, and privately held lands. Each agency the trail passes
through has different definitions of the "authority having jurisdiction" for
that stretch. Some have law enforcement capabilities, others do not. They
all have different concepts of what "wilderness" is, and what you can do
within it. All of them, even within the different districts of the USFS,
have differing focus and priorities. Because of this it is a gargantuan task
to maintain relationships with disparate group given agency staff changes
and have different mandates coming down from their leadership.

The Memorandum of Understanding that prescribes the relationship between the
agencies and the PCTA does not pass any enforcement authority to the PCTA,
only standards for trail maintenance and permission to affiliate the
organization with the trail (i.e., have membership, trail maintenance
projects, and solicit private funding in the name of the PCT). Therefore,
the PCTA cannot by itself change the purpose and uses of the PCT; that is
defined by law in the federal National Trails System Act of 1968. The PCTA
cannot unilaterally decide that it wants mountain bikers on the trail, nor
can they cite violators or enforce the law. My experience is that folks at
the PCTA VEHEMENTLY DO NOT want bikes on the PCT. 

The PCTA's regional representative role is our best resource. This position
was created in part to have a presence and relationship with all of the
agency offices to keep the trail on the agencies' radar. They are on the
ground and meeting face-to-face with the agencies, building relationships.
They coordinate and lead trail maintenance projects, train crew leaders and
volunteers, and are a presence at meetings where issues and threats in their
area are being discussed (like transmission lines, high speed rail, mining,
logging, roads, etc.) They can also bring issues like mountain bike abuse to
the attention of the agencies. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
alone has created its own set of opportunities and challenges for our
regional reps. The ARRA funds created (fortunate) three times the number of
trail crew projects without a commensurate increase in administrative
dollars (not so fortunate). The regional reps all have very full plates but
are each inspiringly dedicated to protecting and preserving the trail.
Donations to the PCTA's general fund helps keeps these reps on the ground
with the tools that they need.

When we began hosting hikers in 1997, the PCTA had two paid staff. Not much
they could do, no matter how much they cared. Just issuing permits and
answering the phone was a full plate. As the PCTA has grown, they have been
able to have a greater presence in all the places they need to be, on all
the issues they need to face. For example, until very recent history, there
was no inventory of the easements and legal holdings of the parcels of land
the trail passes through. Putting together this inventory was a major
accomplishment of the PCTA. Since that was created, the PCTA adopted an
ambitious land management plan that seeks to protect the more than 250 miles
of trail segments that have weak or non-existent legal easements, or are in
danger of having view shed destroyed by (you name the threat, there are so
many). Such a plan will take major dollars and big time donors to implement.
The organization is committed to making it happen.

If you care about protecting the trail, donate to the PCTA. They really need
general funds to help run the organization and pay the staff including the
regional reps, but your donations can be specified for land protection or
trail maintenance projects. There will soon be a representative for every
section of the trail because of support from donors like you.

L-Rod

p.s. the new office space the PCTA was lucky to move into does not
represent a big increase in rent from what they were paying for a depressing
hovel where there was simply not enough room for staff. The rent may be
somewhat higher, but many costs like internet access, meeting rooms, and
utilities are now included, in addition to the larger space that was
inarguably needed. More importantly, their new location is in the Non-Profit
Resource Center www.nprcenter.org. The NPR Center's site states "offering
comprehensive resources, from a professionally-staffed library, access to a
grant funder database, from fundraising workshops to management networking,
the Center enables new and existing nonprofits to improve management,
operations, fund development, marketing & public relations, board
development and more." The NPR Center is brilliant concept and the
opportunity to move there a truly valuable resource and location for the
PCTA. And, it just happens to be located in the most beautiful place I've
seen in Sacramento. 

-----Original Message-----
From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net [mailto:pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net]
On Behalf Of Timothy Nye
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 7:49 PM
To: Jim & Jane Moody
Cc: pct-l at backcountry.net
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Bikes on PCT- enforcement NEEDED

I am a lawyer; or at least I was until I retired. This really is political
problem rather than a legal problem, in my opinion. Even worse, it has it's
antecedents with Mahatma Ghandi. It's called civil disobediance. This can
allow the bikers, and possibly the general public, to discount and minimize
our objections. The bikers view the restrictions on mountain biking as
unfair. Yes, it's illegal behavior, but it's illegal behavior that there is
no practical effective way to counter other than to take the high ground, as
we already have the law on our side. We are discovering, as the British did
in pre-partition India, that there are very few other responses that can be
effective. We are caught in a posistion of weakness because of a lack of
official enforcement. The mountain biking community is creating a new
reality on the ground, such that,an amendment to the law so that mountain
biking is permitted will no longer be viewed as a change but merely bringing
the law in conformity with reality. In my opinion we are nearly at this
point if not already there.

Unfortunately, and I'm sure not all on the list will appreciate the analogy,
we are in the same posistion as the state of Arizona with respect to illegal
immigration. The powers that be will not enforce the "border" for the PCT
as to mountain bikers. We really cannot do anything officially as the
legal right to enforcement is arguably limited to the federal government.
For a variety of reasons they have abdicated this responsibility. Some,
such as the State of California Park Service at Castle Crags have adopted a
policy welcoming and sanctioning mountain biking on the trail.

Law enforcement would mean that the wilderness, that which we are seeking to
maintain, would be that much less wild. Even assuming, which I doubt, that
we could have bounty hunters / rangers prowling the wilderness looking for
mountain biking scofflaws, and even if they were effective, we would have
rangers / bounty hunters in the wilderness, but not just in wilderness
areas. The trail could seem to get pretty crowded even if the bike
suppression effort were successful; albeit the absence of bikers is clearly
a net plus.

What would it take to get to the point of enforcing the official
prohibition?

I see only two possibilities. First, the federal appointment of someone who
is commited, first and foremeost, to enforcement and is in a sufficiently
important posistion that they can make it happen. Think "tea party" for the
PCT "Constitution"... a fanatic would be best absent the pejorative aspects
of the term. Second, the PCTA. This would take political capital, and my
impression is that they (not the Board, Donna!) are more concerned about
fund raising.

I've been waging an internal fight with myself about whether to post this
next for the last six months as it may be viewed as a flame or
inappropriate, but I really don't know what else I should do as I am
concerned about the trail and this is the community. I know somw will take
issue with what I say, but I am really concerned about what it may heral for
the trail. I have serious reservations about the the direction the PCTA has
taken over the last year and a half, from the abolition of trail fest ( for
financial reasons-at the same time the PCTA signed an exorbitant lease on a
class A building on the Sacramento River-I used to negotiate leases in
Sacramento and know the termo to the most recent change banning members of
the Board of Directors to be nominated by anyone but the Board internally.
The executive is increasingly insulated from outside control and the
community as a whole while raising dues this year by 20% and soliciting
inherientences. The thing about this latter aspect, is that such bequests in
California are able to be spent independent from any attempted strings
placed on them by the one making the bequest. My gut feeling is that
executive pay and benefits are likely to be the real goal here, but then who
am I to say whether that is right or wrong and what is excessive and what is
not excessive. This requires a lot of trust. I will say that I was going
to make a large four figure donation to the PCTA this year, as it would be
matched by my wife's employer. Given the above, and my gut feeling which I
just can't shake, we passed on the donation.

I think that the Board could direct the PCTA in this matter. I checked out
the memebrship of the Board and was dissuaded from saying anything since the
memebrship of the board is clearly impressive. Then the resyriction on new
board memebers was passed and now a long time member of the PCTA left for
ADZPCTKO decrying corporatization of the PCTA.

We don't need trail police. We need this to made a priority with the
existing enforcement mechanisms available with feedback so that we know that
directives to enforce the ban are actually being implemented. This could
validate the PCTA and enlarge it's role, while at the same time ridding the
trail of the biker problem. ( I noted in an earlier post that I was afraid
that the PCTA might view bikers as another source of dues...Donna assured
that this would not be the case, but this is the source of my concern)






On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Jim & Jane Moody wrote:

>
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but I used to play one on TV (live City Council
meetings,
> actually). What you are referring to is "adverse possession", wherein
> someone gains a right to land based on the unchallenged use of it for a
long
> time. A typical situation might be a driveway across someone else's
> property that non-owners use to gain access to someplace else (say a lake
or
> park) for many years, and where the property is not posted as "private -
no
> trespassing". Since riding bikes on the PCT is illegal and signed thusly,
I
> can't imagine that simply violating a law without being caught somehow
would
> cause that law to become void. If I drive faster than the speed limit for
a
> year then get caught, I won't get far with the defense that "I've done it
> for a full year and nobody made me stop."
>
>
>
> "Grandfather clause" describes an activity that was legal and ongoing,
then
> became nonconforming after passage of an amendment to a law or regulation.
> Here's an example - your house is 10 ft from the rear property line, which
> was the requirement when it was built. Years later the City Council
decides
> that the rear yard setback should be 20 ft and passes a zoning ordinance
> amendment to that effect. Your house now does not conform to the Zoning
> Code, but you are protected against having to tear down and rebuild.
>
>
>
> By the way, if anybody needs an overpriced planning & zoning consultant
> before hiking starts back, let me know.
>
>
>
> Mango
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Edward Anderson" 
> To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Sent: Wednesday, November 3, 2010 5:30:38 PM
> Subject: [pct-l] Bikes on PCT- enforcement NEEDED
>
> Hi All,
>
> We all agree that mountain bikes on the PCT are a serious safety hazard
for
> other users, that their wheel tracks create channels for water to run down
> causing deepening ruts and erosion, and that, by law, they are not allowed
> either on the PCT or in wilderness areas. We who use the PCT, even though
> wheeled vehicles are unlawful, often meet them on the trail. There are
> more of
> these confrontations every year. Since there is no enforcement of the
ban,
> and
> the word is getting out among mountain bikers (and motorcycle users) that
> they
> can go ahead and ride on the trail without consequence, we can expect that
> this
> problem will become greater each year. And, as we have now become aware,
> they
> will be pushing to see the law changed so that the PCT and wilderness
areas
> be
> open to wheeled vehicles. So long as there is no enforcement, and all we
> do is
> deprecate their sometimes very rude, unsafe, and destructive behavior,
> their
> numbers will increase. Here is a question for the lawyers on this
> forum: If
> illegal trespassing on the PCT is tolerated and it goes on for long
enough,
> is
> there a time when the "grandfather clause" might apply?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-L mailing list
> Pct-L at backcountry.net
> To unsubcribe, or change options visit:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
> List Archives:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
>
_______________________________________________
Pct-L mailing list
Pct-L at backcountry.net
To unsubcribe, or change options visit:
http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l

List Archives:
http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/

_______________________________________________
Pct-L mailing list
Pct-L at backcountry.net
To unsubcribe, or change options visit:
http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l

List Archives:
http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/